Would also likely be the beginning of the end of American League baseball in the San Francisco Bay area.

dickallen15

11-04-2013, 11:35 AM

What I don't understand is if the Giants are so opposed to the A's moving to San Jose, why would they be agreeable to sharing their park with them?

Moses_Scurry

11-04-2013, 12:45 PM

What I don't understand is if the Giants are so opposed to the A's moving to San Jose, why would they be agreeable to sharing their park with them?

Maybe they will stomach it for a year or two if it means the A's will in Indianapolis (or Charlotte, or Portland, or New Orleans, etc) after.

TDog

11-04-2013, 03:37 PM

What I don't understand is if the Giants are so opposed to the A's moving to San Jose, why would they be agreeable to sharing their park with them?

I don't believe the Giants would agree to the A's occupying their park while they're on the road. The Giants actually own their park, raised the money to build it on their own and still have debt service. But I've heard this suggestion floated a few times by fans who find the park in Oakland unacceptable, fans who would prefer watching baseball at the nice park across the bay.

The A's could do what the Giants did not so long ago and finance their own park, but that apparently is not part of the discussion. I don't see the A's playing in San Francisco unless the Giants were to charge the A's substantial rent and maintenance costs. Or the A's could bring baseball back to Candlestick Park.

During the debate over places to play for the Bay Area football teams, it might have been a newspaper columnist who suggested one park on Treasure Island, which can only be accessed by the Bay Bridge. I think the bridge, connecting San Francisco and Oakland, is the most heavily traveled in the country already, at least it's on the short list, so it's not uncommon to hear ridiculous ideas thrown out in NoCal.

Hitmen77

11-04-2013, 04:07 PM

The San Francisco Chronicle floated the idea that MLB may support the move if the A's can't come to an agreement with the O.co Coliseum for next year...

Would also likely be the beginning of the end of American League baseball in the San Francisco Bay area.

Sounds like this is just an idea floated by a newspaper and is not under serious consideration.

As far as this being the beginning of the end of the A's in the Bay Area, I'm not so sure about that. As bad as O.co Coliseum is, I just have no idea where else the A's would go. I just don't think Vegas is a viable MLB market. Is there a viable city out there that is willing to pay for a new stadium to lure the A's?

I don't believe the Giants would agree to the A's occupying their park while they're on the road. The Giants actually own their park, raised the money to build it on their own and still have debt service. But I've heard this suggestion floated a few times by fans who find the park in Oakland unacceptable, fans who would prefer watching baseball at the nice park across the bay.

The A's could do what the Giants did not so long ago and finance their own park, but that apparently is not part of the discussion. I don't see the A's playing in San Francisco unless the Giants were to charge the A's substantial rent and maintenance costs. Or the A's could bring baseball back to Candlestick Park.

During the debate over places to play for the Bay Area football teams, it might have been a newspaper columnist who suggested one park on Treasure Island, which can only be accessed by the Bay Bridge. I think the bridge, connecting San Francisco and Oakland, is the most heavily traveled in the country already, at least it's on the short list, so it's not uncommon to hear ridiculous ideas thrown out in NoCal.

:?: Cisco Field is proposed to be privately financed. It's not the A's looking for public funding that's holding up the project, it's the issue of territorial rights in San Jose.

DumpJerry

11-04-2013, 04:54 PM

Or the A's could bring baseball back to Candlestick Park.
:bundy

cards press box

11-04-2013, 05:39 PM

:bundy

Scary as that sounds to the great Al Bundy, wouldn't Candlestick -- yes Candlestick -- be an improvement over the mess that the Oakland Coliseum has become? The A's could play lots of day games to combat the cold weather at night, I suppose.

What MLB should really do is get the Giants to back off of their territorial rights to San Jose (which the A's gave them in the first place) so the A's can go there.

blandman

11-04-2013, 06:02 PM

Scary as that sounds to the great Al Bundy, wouldn't Candlestick -- yes Candlestick -- be an improvement over the mess that the Oakland Coliseum has become? The A's could play lots of day games to combat the cold weather at night, I suppose.

What MLB should really do is get the Giants to back off of their territorial rights to San Jose (which the A's gave them in the first place) so the A's can go there.

As silly as it is for San Francisco to claim San Jose is there's when they both obviously share support in that area, moving the A's to San Jose is also silly and just a short term solution. The San Fran/Oakland/San Jose area is not large enough to support two major league teams. An out of market move would be a much better solution.

dickallen15

11-04-2013, 06:43 PM

As silly as it is for San Francisco to claim San Jose is there's when they both obviously share support in that area, moving the A's to San Jose is also silly and just a short term solution. The San Fran/Oakland/San Jose area is not large enough to support two major league teams. An out of market move would be a much better solution.
The Giants were 3rd in baseball in attendance. Oakland's situation is pretty bad, but they drew 1.8 million. I think there is plenty of interest.

DSpivack

11-04-2013, 07:33 PM

As silly as it is for San Francisco to claim San Jose is there's when they both obviously share support in that area, moving the A's to San Jose is also silly and just a short term solution. The San Fran/Oakland/San Jose area is not large enough to support two major league teams. An out of market move would be a much better solution.

The Bay Area has 8 million people. They should easily be able to support two teams. Plus, there shouldn't be a lack of corporate support from Silicon Valley, if they move to San Jose.

The 49ers will be moving down there (Santa Clara, anyway) in, what, a year or two?

Brian26

11-04-2013, 07:38 PM

The San Fran/Oakland/San Jose area is not large enough to support two major league teams.

Clearly, since it has only supported two teams for the past 46 years.

TDog

11-04-2013, 07:40 PM

As silly as it is for San Francisco to claim San Jose is there's when they both obviously share support in that area, moving the A's to San Jose is also silly and just a short term solution. The San Fran/Oakland/San Jose area is not large enough to support two major league teams. An out of market move would be a much better solution.

It isn't silly at all for the Giants to claim San Jose. The A's, in writing, granted the Giants territorial rights to San Jose. The bonds the Giants sold to build their stadium were secured with the understanding that San Jose was part of the Giants' territory.

Suggesting the Bay Area is not large enough to support two major league teams, however, does seem silly in the context of Major League Baseball, considering that the Giants outdrew the Cubs and the A's outdrew the White Sox this year.

Candlestick probably wouldn't be a much greater hardship than the coliseum in Oakland, whatever it's called in any given week. Even at AT&T, though, you often have to bring a blanket for night games in July.

doublem23

11-05-2013, 06:10 AM

The 49ers will be moving down there (Santa Clara, anyway) in, what, a year or two?

Next season

blandman

11-05-2013, 11:26 AM

Um...what am I missing here? None of those three cities has a million people, and we're talking about a massive amount of territory going down to San Jose where commutes are not the easiest thing. Yeah, they're both drawing now. But San Fran has been winning a lot of titles lately and Oakland's won two straight divisions. If both teams aren't perennial contenders, I don't think it works.

The area has not been able to support two teams for the duration. Oakland's attendance was incredibly abysmal for almost a decade, and they had winners in that time. The fan base isn't there.

Hitmen77

11-05-2013, 12:42 PM

As silly as it is for San Francisco to claim San Jose is there's when they both obviously share support in that area, moving the A's to San Jose is also silly and just a short term solution. The San Fran/Oakland/San Jose area is not large enough to support two major league teams. An out of market move would be a much better solution.

Not that I agree with it, but people say this about Chicago too (that it can't support two teams).

thomas35forever

11-05-2013, 01:02 PM

Well, if it works for football in New York and basketball in LA, why not?:shrug:

blandman

11-05-2013, 01:36 PM

Not that I agree with it, but people say this about Chicago too (that it can't support two teams).

It's different though. San Fran and Chicago have nearly identical population densities, but outside San Fran (which is three times smaller) those numbers drop precipitously. And, let's face it, if you live in San Fran, you aren't an A's fan. I honestly think it would work more fairly if the teams were in Oakland and San Jose. Having one team be the team of San Francisco really limits the remaining market. People living in Oakland or San Jose are not traveling to the other city consistently for baseball. If you have the teams there, the San Fran market would then be split north and south.

I know that's never going to happen because realistically San Fran is the big city. But that's why two teams won't work.

DSpivack

11-05-2013, 01:41 PM

It's different though. San Fran and Chicago have nearly identical population densities, but outside San Fran (which is three times smaller) those numbers drop precipitously. And, let's face it, if you live in San Fran, you aren't an A's fan. I honestly think it would work more fairly if the teams were in Oakland and San Jose. Having one team be the team of San Francisco really limits the remaining market. People living in Oakland or San Jose are not traveling to the other city consistently for baseball. If you have the teams there, the San Fran market would then be split north and south.

I know that's never going to happen because realistically San Fran is the big city. But that's why two teams won't work.

Traveling between Oakland and San Francisco is much less a hassle, and a much shorter distance, than traveling between either city and San Jose. A move to San Jose would probably be a good one for the A's. There is plenty enough of a population base to support them there. Santa Clara County has 1.7 million people alone and is one of the wealthiest counties in the country.

Moses_Scurry

11-05-2013, 01:48 PM

Maybe my geography is off or maybe things have changed since I last went to the bay area about 10 years ago, but isn't Oakland pretty much a dump? Couldn't a comparison be made to the cubs and Sox general areas back in the era of Wrigleyville being party central and the Cell being next to the projects? The A's probably have a pretty decent following, but the people just don't want to go to Oakland. Maybe if they played in a nicer area, more of their fans would show.

TDog

11-05-2013, 02:14 PM

It's different though. San Fran and Chicago have nearly identical population densities, but outside San Fran (which is three times smaller) those numbers drop precipitously. And, let's face it, if you live in San Fran, you aren't an A's fan. I honestly think it would work more fairly if the teams were in Oakland and San Jose. Having one team be the team of San Francisco really limits the remaining market. People living in Oakland or San Jose are not traveling to the other city consistently for baseball. If you have the teams there, the San Fran market would then be split north and south.

I know that's never going to happen because realistically San Fran is the big city. But that's why two teams won't work.

You obviously don't spend much time in the Bay Area.

blandman

11-05-2013, 02:19 PM

You obviously don't spend much time in the Bay Area.

Other than living there for a year? No.

blandman

11-05-2013, 02:23 PM

Traveling between Oakland and San Francisco is much less a hassle, and a much shorter distance, than traveling between either city and San Jose. A move to San Jose would probably be a good one for the A's. There is plenty enough of a population base to support them there. Santa Clara County has 1.7 million people alone and is one of the wealthiest counties in the country.

I realize Oakland and San Fran is no problem, but South San Francisco is going to support the Giants even if there's a team in San Jose.

And while Santa Clara County has a lot of people, it's also both huge and terrible to travel. Unless you live off the 101, it's going to take you hours to get to San Jose.

DSpivack

11-05-2013, 02:51 PM

I realize Oakland and San Fran is no problem, but South San Francisco is going to support the Giants even if there's a team in San Jose.

And while Santa Clara County has a lot of people, it's also both huge and terrible to travel. Unless you live off the 101, it's going to take you hours to get to San Jose.
It doesn't take hours to get to San Jose from the rest of the county (perhaps it does from Gilroy or Casa de Fruta, but they're the A's not the Garlics). They wouldn't need support from South SF, obviously that's probably going to be mostly Giants fans and is still close to the city.

TDog

11-05-2013, 04:51 PM

Other than living there for a year? No.

Did you happen to notice that it's only a 20-minute BART ride from the Embarcadero in San Francisco to the coliseum in Oakland?

blandman

11-05-2013, 05:26 PM

Did you happen to notice that it's only a 20-minute BART ride from the Embarcadero in San Francisco to the coliseum in Oakland?

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. Yes, I know San Fran and Oakland are really close and easily accessible. But that's not even 1.5 million people between the two stadiums available by transit.

blandman

11-05-2013, 05:27 PM

It doesn't take hours to get to San Jose from the rest of the county (perhaps it does from Gilroy or Casa de Fruta, but they're the A's not the Garlics). They wouldn't need support from South SF, obviously that's probably going to be mostly Giants fans and is still close to the city.

Eh...the roads are pretty terrible and so is the traffic. Unless you live in San Jose or immediate outlying communities, it would be an absolute pain to be a season ticket holder.

Also, in regards to population...it's not like it's the midwest. St. Louis survives with lower numbers because everyone that lives in St. Louis is a Cards fan, and an avid one at that. That culture isn't really an option anywhere else.

DSpivack

11-05-2013, 05:46 PM

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. Yes, I know San Fran and Oakland are really close and easily accessible. But that's not even 1.5 million people between the two stadiums available by transit.

Going by the cities alone on population is a rather dumb way to look at it. It'd be like wondering how the Nats can survive with DC only having 500,000 people, or the Braves on Atlanta's 400,000.

blandman

11-05-2013, 05:56 PM

Going by the cities alone on population is a rather dumb way to look at it. It'd be like wondering how the Nats can survive with DC only having 500,000 people, or the Braves on Atlanta's 400,000.

You can't make that comparison though, because the demographics are completely different. People in California, frankly, have a lot of other options than spending time traveling to the a ballpark.

I don't think the A's aren't better off in San Jose...I just don't think the situation is that much better.

DSpivack

11-05-2013, 06:42 PM

You can't make that comparison though, because the demographics are completely different. People in California, frankly, have a lot of other options than spending time traveling to the a ballpark.

I don't think the A's aren't better off in San Jose...I just don't think the situation is that much better.

I have no idea what that first sentence means.

As for the second, the Dodgers were #1 in attendance in 2013. The Giants were #3. The Angels were #7. The Padres had a bad team and still drew 26,000 fans per game (nearly 400,000 more in total than the White Sox). So, the notion that people in California don't travel to ballparks doesn't seem to hold water.

At the gate, only Oakland struggled, and they have obvious stadium issues. I see no reason why that wouldn't improve in a more heavily populated and perhaps wealthier (and surely more and closer connection to corporate wealth, with less competition with the Giants) area in San Jose. To say nothing of being in a new ballpark in any location.

TDog

11-05-2013, 10:03 PM

I have no idea what that first sentence means.

As for the second, the Dodgers were #1 in attendance in 2013. The Giants were #3. The Angels were #7. The Padres had a bad team and still drew 26,000 fans per game (nearly 400,000 more in total than the White Sox). So, the notion that people in California don't travel to ballparks doesn't seem to hold water.

At the gate, only Oakland struggled, and they have obvious stadium issues. I see no reason why that wouldn't improve in a more heavily populated and perhaps wealthier (and surely more and closer connection to corporate wealth, with less competition with the Giants) area in San Jose. To say nothing of being in a new ballpark in any location.

I really don't see the A's moving to San Jose. I believe voters would have to approve a stadium before it could be built, although I may have missed such approval being granted. If it was waived, I missed that. I think voters in Santa Clara County voted at least twice on a proposed Giants stadium and rejected the proposal before the Giants ended up with their new park in San Francisco. The A's want to move to San Jose and San Jose city leaders and business leaders want the A's to move to San Jose, but the A's already would have moved to Fremont if they hadn't been rejected by the city of Fremont. San Jose seems more of an uphill struggle.

There is no question the A's play in a truly awful venue for major league baseball. Still, Oakland, is under some pressure, at risk of losing its MLB, NFL and NBA teams that define it. The Town could step up and offer help. I don't think A's ownership is interested, but it could be enough to hurt the A's chances of convincing baseball to allow the A's to relocate.

But even with the A's playing in such an awful place (really, it has to be experienced to be appreciated), California does an excellent job of supporting five major league teams despite having better things to do.

DSpivack

11-05-2013, 10:14 PM

I really don't see the A's moving to San Jose. I believe voters would have to approve a stadium before it could be built, although I may have missed such approval being granted. If it was waived, I missed that. I think voters in Santa Clara County voted at least twice on a proposed Giants stadium and rejected the proposal before the Giants ended up with their new park in San Francisco. The A's want to move to San Jose and San Jose city leaders and business leaders want the A's to move to San Jose, but the A's already would have moved to Fremont if they hadn't been rejected by the city of Fremont. San Jose seems more of an uphill struggle.

There is no question the A's play in a truly awful venue for major league baseball. Still, Oakland, is under some pressure, at risk of losing its MLB, NFL and NBA teams that define it. The Town could step up and offer help. I don't think A's ownership is interested, but it could be enough to hurt the A's chances of convincing baseball to allow the A's to relocate.

But even with the A's playing in such an awful place (really, it has to be experienced to be appreciated), California does an excellent job of supporting five major league teams despite having better things to do.

What do you think the endgame will end up being for the A's? Move to another metro area?

blandman

11-05-2013, 10:16 PM

I have no idea what that first sentence means.

As for the second, the Dodgers were #1 in attendance in 2013. The Giants were #3. The Angels were #7. The Padres had a bad team and still drew 26,000 fans per game (nearly 400,000 more in total than the White Sox). So, the notion that people in California don't travel to ballparks doesn't seem to hold water.

How did the White Sox do in 2006? Maybe we should make statements based on that? The Giants and Angels (even with their singular down season) have been perennial playoff machines. That's what drives their attendance.

You're right that the Padres draw, but San Diego is a weird city in that it's got a large military population that really helps with attendance, and they host several military themed games and programs because of it.

A more apt comparison for the Dodgers would be the Yankees. And even that's not as good because the Dodgers don't share L.A.

My point is there's a million things to do in California compared to cities like Atlanta or any of the smaller cities in the midwest. Add in way worse traffic, and regular trips to the ballpark are not really worth it unless the teams are playing well.

DSpivack

11-05-2013, 10:29 PM

How did the White Sox do in 2006? Maybe we should make statements based on that? The Giants and Angels (even with their singular down season) have been perennial playoff machines. That's what drives their attendance.

You're right that the Padres draw, but San Diego is a weird city in that it's got a large military population that really helps with attendance, and they host several military themed games and programs because of it.

A more apt comparison for the Dodgers would be the Yankees. And even that's not as good because the Dodgers don't share L.A.

My point is there's a million things to do in California compared to cities like Atlanta or any of the smaller cities in the midwest. Add in way worse traffic, and regular trips to the ballpark are not really worth it unless the teams are playing well.

And all the teams, besides Oakland, draw well regardless of that. Everything above that is you trying to excuse facts away to fit your nonsensical argument.

blandman

11-05-2013, 11:16 PM

And all the teams, besides Oakland, draw well regardless of that. Everything above that is you trying to excuse facts away to fit your nonsensical argument.

Anaheim and San Fran have not always drawn well, and when San Fran's up Oakland, if they're good as well, can only draw modestly (and draws terribly in any other scenario). That's not nonsensical, that's history. The area can't support two teams.

DSpivack

11-06-2013, 12:02 AM

Anaheim and San Fran have not always drawn well, and when San Fran's up Oakland, if they're good as well, can only draw modestly (and draws terribly in any other scenario). That's not nonsensical, that's history. The area can't support two teams.
The Giants have also drawn well in the new park.

And I still think the A's problem is the Coliseum moreso than anything else.

The nonsensical argument I was referring to is that there is just so much more to do in the state of California that makes teams not draw well. Everyone but the A's draws fine.

blandman

11-06-2013, 01:26 AM

The Giants have also drawn well in the new park.

And I still think the A's problem is the Coliseum moreso than anything else.

The nonsensical argument I was referring to is that there is just so much more to do in the state of California that makes teams not draw well. Everyone but the A's draws fine.

St. Louis has 300,000 and sells out 40,000 people a night. Atlanta has 400,000 people and sells over 30,000 people a night. Those numbers are consistent, win or lose, and represent a tremendous percentage of the population.

By comparison, Oakland is twice as large as St. Louis and draws in a good year while the Giants are down what we draw in a bad year (for example, see this year). In a best case scenario they draw what we do in our worst case scenario. That is not an area that can sustain two teams, and it's not just because of population. It's because the population isn't, for whatever reason, as interested in baseball as other regions of the country.

TDog

11-06-2013, 01:52 AM

What do you think the endgame will end up being for the A's? Move to another metro area?

I think the A's will stay in Oakland. To paraphrase Joan Didion (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/151692-california-is-a-place-in-which-a-boom-mentality-and), it has to work there because they've run out of continent. I think faced with losing its sports teams, Oakland will do something, especially if they lose the Raiders again.

In the end, I think the A's are better off where they are than relocating to another metro area.

Hitmen77

11-06-2013, 09:29 AM

The A's staying put in Oakland for now:
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24186394/report-as-playing-in-att-park-is-on-the-table

Eh...the roads are pretty terrible and so is the traffic. Unless you live in San Jose or immediate outlying communities, it would be an absolute pain to be a season ticket holder.

Also, in regards to population...it's not like it's the midwest. St. Louis survives with lower numbers because everyone that lives in St. Louis is a Cards fan, and an avid one at that. That culture isn't really an option anywhere else.

If you're talking about the city alone, San Jose is the 10th most populous city in America. There are plenty of fans to be had in the immediate San Jose area.

I really don't see the A's moving to San Jose. I believe voters would have to approve a stadium before it could be built, although I may have missed such approval being granted. If it was waived, I missed that. I think voters in Santa Clara County voted at least twice on a proposed Giants stadium and rejected the proposal before the Giants ended up with their new park in San Francisco. The A's want to move to San Jose and San Jose city leaders and business leaders want the A's to move to San Jose, but the A's already would have moved to Fremont if they hadn't been rejected by the city of Fremont. San Jose seems more of an uphill struggle.

I don't remember the details of the San Jose stadium deal, but I thought it was pretty much a done deal (including approval by the city) except for the territorial rights issue. I can't find any links to articles to support this though.

If I remember correctly, it was going to be privately financed except for San Jose selling some city-owned land for the ballpark (or something like that).

TDog

11-06-2013, 01:58 PM

I don't remember the details of the San Jose stadium deal, but I thought it was pretty much a done deal (including approval by the city) except for the territorial rights issue. I can't find any links to articles to support this though.

If I remember correctly, it was going to be privately financed except for San Jose selling some city-owned land for the ballpark (or something like that).

As I understand it, the city wouldn't pay for it (and neither would the A's, else it wouldn't need to be in San Jose), but the city would make concessions. Everything I've read indicates there would still need to be a public vote. Maybe the vote has already taken place. The A's have presented it as a done deal, but they presented Fremont as a done deal before the city council turned them down. I would guess there are infrastructure issues in addition to the sale of the land. I really don't know how controversial the issue is in San Jose. (Actually, I'm typing this in Palo Alto, but I don't have time to check the pulse on the San Jose streets.)

But the only way the A's get the deal in San Jose is if they convince a super-majority of major-league owners that Oakland is beyond rehabilitation, although the attorneys for the A's have been quoted as saying the baseball antitrust exemption has to be unconstitutional. They Giants aren't giving up the territorial rights, nor should they. Of course, a quarter of a century ago, it seemed a sure thing the Giants would end up in San Jose before they built their own park in San Francisco after baseball told them they couldn't move to St. Petersburg.

I just don't see the A's deserting the East Bay for the South Bay. It isn't just about Oakland. It's the East Bay. It's Orinda and Concord, Pleasanton and Livermore. I don't live in the East Bay, but I live in A's country. The sports radio station in Modesto in the San Joaquin Valley does A's games. Even people I see in Giants T-shirts are often wearing A's caps and vice versa. Not that I consider the A's my team. I wouldn't mind at all if the A's and Marlins (which obviously doesn't have the popualation to support a major league team) were eliminated and their talent scattered in a draft.

But the A's have a nitch. Maybe Charlie Finley should have stayed in Kansas City. Maybe if the AFL hadn't challenged the NFL in the 1960s to give Oakland undeserved credibility, he would have. But in four-plus decades, the A's have establshed a place for themselves in baseball that they likely didn't have when they left Philadelphia to be an NL-only city, despite its population. Maybe if these were better economic times, they would move to Sacramento. Really, I don't see the A's leaving the East Bay and this broad section of Northern California for a place where they don't have a fanbase.

I always hated hearing people from outside Chicago (I hated the occasional Chicago comments, too, of course) telling me upon hearing I was a White Sox fan that Chicago can't support two major league teams. As much as I loathe the A's and their fanbase, as bad a baseball experience it is going to the coliseum to see my Sox, it angers me to hear that sort of thing about Oakland. I feel for the A's fans in the face of such arrogance.

DSpivack

11-06-2013, 02:20 PM

As I understand it, the city wouldn't pay for it (and neither would the A's, else it wouldn't need to be in San Jose), but the city would make concessions. Everything I've read indicates there would still need to be a public vote. Maybe the vote has already taken place. The A's have presented it as a done deal, but they presented Fremont as a done deal before the city council turned them down. I would guess there are infrastructure issues in addition to the sale of the land. I really don't know how controversial the issue is in San Jose. (Actually, I'm typing this in Palo Alto, but I don't have time to check the pulse on the San Jose streets.)

But the only way the A's get the deal in San Jose is if they convince a super-majority of major-league owners that Oakland is beyond rehabilitation, although the attorneys for the A's have been quoted as saying the baseball antitrust exemption has to be unconstitutional. They Giants aren't giving up the territorial rights, nor should they. Of course, a quarter of a century ago, it seemed a sure thing the Giants would end up in San Jose before they built their own park in San Francisco after baseball told them they couldn't move to St. Petersburg.

I just don't see the A's deserting the East Bay for the South Bay. It isn't just about Oakland. It's the East Bay. It's Orinda and Concord, Pleasanton and Livermore. I don't live in the East Bay, but I live in A's country. The sports radio station in Modesto in the San Joaquin Valley does A's games. Even people I see in Giants T-shirts are often wearing A's caps and vice versa. Not that I consider the A's my team. I wouldn't mind at all if the A's and Marlins (which obviously doesn't have the popualation to support a major league team) were eliminated and their talent scattered in a draft.

But the A's have a nitch. Maybe Charlie Finley should have stayed in Kansas City. Maybe if the AFL hadn't challenged the NFL in the 1960s to give Oakland undeserved credibility, he would have. But in four-plus decades, the A's have establshed a place for themselves in baseball that they likely didn't have when they left Philadelphia to be an NL-only city, despite its population. Maybe if these were better economic times, they would move to Sacramento. Really, I don't see the A's leaving the East Bay and this broad section of Northern California for a place where they don't have a fanbase.

I always hated hearing people from outside Chicago (I hated the occasional Chicago comments, too, of course) telling me upon hearing I was a White Sox fan that Chicago can't support two major league teams. As much as I loathe the A's and their fanbase, as bad a baseball experience it is going to the coliseum to see my Sox, it angers me to hear that sort of thing about Oakland. I feel for the A's fans in the face of such arrogance.

Thanks for the insight. It's hard to see another multi-use stadium and also Oakland building two new stadiums, no? Although I would think baseball teams would bring a greater economic benefit to a city than a football team (even if I'm one to think the economic benefit argument in favor of public financing stadiums is bunk). Thus, I wonder if the Raiders more likely to depart than the A's. I want to say there has been talk of the Raiders moving over the Oakland hills to a city whose name I forget.

St. Louis has 300,000 and sells out 40,000 people a night. Atlanta has 400,000 people and sells over 30,000 people a night. Those numbers are consistent, win or lose, and represent a tremendous percentage of the population.

By comparison, Oakland is twice as large as St. Louis and draws in a good year while the Giants are down what we draw in a bad year (for example, see this year). In a best case scenario they draw what we do in our worst case scenario. That is not an area that can sustain two teams, and it's not just because of population. It's because the population isn't, for whatever reason, as interested in baseball as other regions of the country.

It's a shame I can't ever go to a Sox game until I move back into the city of Chicago. I grow up in Evanston, so I never went to a game growing up, either. :(:

TDog

11-06-2013, 02:41 PM

Thanks for the insight. It's hard to see another multi-use stadium and also Oakland building two new stadiums, no? Although I would think baseball teams would bring a greater economic benefit to a city than a football team (even if I'm one to think the economic benefit argument in favor of public financing stadiums is bunk). Thus, I wonder if the Raiders more likely to depart than the A's. I want to say there has been talk of the Raiders moving over the Oakland hills to a city whose name I forget.
...

If the Raiders were to move -- again -- the city could renovate the coliseum into a nice baseball-only park, although it would take some work. The coliseum is still in run-down light industrial area, but the geographic location isn't bad. It has a BART stop, as well as a Capitol Corridor passenger train stop from Sacramento. It has its own I-880 exit. I know most, if not all of that didn't exist when the A's moved there. Oracle Arena, home of the Golden State Warriors, share the same parking lot.

I don't know if that will ever happen. The city, or maybe the county or maybe the two in cahoots, wanted the Raiders back enough that they ruined what charm the coliseum had to get them.

But I have to believe Oakland wants to be known for more than its rap/hip-hop scene. No one will ever think Jack London Square when they think of Oakland.

palehozenychicty

11-20-2013, 11:21 PM

I really don't see the A's moving to San Jose. I believe voters would have to approve a stadium before it could be built, although I may have missed such approval being granted. If it was waived, I missed that. I think voters in Santa Clara County voted at least twice on a proposed Giants stadium and rejected the proposal before the Giants ended up with their new park in San Francisco. The A's want to move to San Jose and San Jose city leaders and business leaders want the A's to move to San Jose, but the A's already would have moved to Fremont if they hadn't been rejected by the city of Fremont. San Jose seems more of an uphill struggle.

There is no question the A's play in a truly awful venue for major league baseball. Still, Oakland, is under some pressure, at risk of losing its MLB, NFL and NBA teams that define it. The Town could step up and offer help. I don't think A's ownership is interested, but it could be enough to hurt the A's chances of convincing baseball to allow the A's to relocate.

But even with the A's playing in such an awful place (really, it has to be experienced to be appreciated), California does an excellent job of supporting five major league teams despite having better things to do.

I have been to two A's games against the Twins, coincidentally, and it is all that you have heard and then some.

The Coliseum is not designed for anything, much less baseball.

TDog

11-21-2013, 12:08 AM

I have been to two A's games against the Twins, coincidentally, and it is all that you have heard and then some.

The Coliseum is not designed for anything, much less baseball.

It's even worse late in non-contending seasons when the baseball field is striped for football. The last game I saw at the coliseum, the last game the Sox played there, I had the misfortune of sitting in front of a fan who was loudly arguing with no one in particular that the coliseum was superior to AT&T, while he wasn't crudely heckling Sox players. In seven seasons of going to the games in Oakland, I've found it to be my least favorite baseball experience.

But this week at Save-Mart, a woman in back of me in line at the checkout was wearing an A's T-shirt. The cashier said he was still in mourning, and the woman said she would recover by April without being more specific about what they were talking about. And I live an hour east of the East Bay.

Really, I would find moving the A's to the South Bay or even out of state more distasteful than keeping the A's in the coliseum.

voodoochile

11-21-2013, 12:58 AM

Traveling between Oakland and San Francisco is much less a hassle, and a much shorter distance, than traveling between either city and San Jose. A move to San Jose would probably be a good one for the A's. There is plenty enough of a population base to support them there. Santa Clara County has 1.7 million people alone and is one of the wealthiest counties in the country.

Not just that but they'd hold on to their Oakland fans and grab the San Jose market in effect giving them 3X the potential fan base of the Giants. That's before we even factor in the Santa Cruz area which is only 30 minutes away from San Jose.

I'd be for it because it would make it easier to go to games. I'm looking forward to the 9ers moving down here. Might catch a game from time to time.

MiamiSpartan

11-30-2013, 08:30 AM

I will never understand why the Giants would rather have the A's in Oakland vs being further away in San Jose…..
There are not many markets left that could handle an MLB team any longer….